|
quote:I am Amjad Bashir, though those who know me well call me Peter. ?
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
Saw my first UKIP billboard, already vandalised, makes me proud to live in Oxford. Not sure Cowley Road was the best place to put it though, as it's probably one of the most multicultural parts of Oxfordshire. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Oops, looks like Nige forgot the 'disavow and banish' rule of gaffe management: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/11/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-candidate-roger-helmer-previous-anti-gay-remarks
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Oops, looks like Nige forgot the 'disavow and banish' rule of gaffe management: That struck me earlier. Its ok to voice ugly prejudices as long as you are old. Incredible.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Alecto posted:They also engaged in a lot of privatisation (prisons, NHS, planned the Royal Mail privatisation), huge deregulation of the financial sector, were ridiculously fond of PFI, presided over a rise in inequality (some of which has to be attributed to their complacency over redistributive tax and tax avoidance), egged on the housing bubble, introduced workfare, introduced academies. Then of course the really, really big one, for which they deserve to be unelectable for a generation, Iraq. They weren't conservative, they were generally better than the modern Tories (on quite a few issues worse than the pre-Thatcher Tories, though), but they weren't leftist either. If you want centrist liberalism, then that's fine, but I think most here want something a good deal more leftist than that, and I don't think we should start snarking people for being dissatisfied with New Labour; there's a wealth of reasons to be. I'm certainly not saying that New Labour were perfect, but it's absurd to say that they or the modern Labour party were/are equivalent to Tories. On top of that, a couple of your criticisms are inaccurate or without context. It's simply not true that Labour deregulated the financial sector - that happened during Thatcher's Big Bang. Labour actually significantly increased its regulation (between the Big Bang and the creation of the FSA, the sector was largely self-regulated). Their failure in that respect wasn't that they removed regulations, it was that they didn't go far enough when creating new ones and were blind to systemic risk. I also think that PPP/PFI is maligned for rather unrealistic reasons and tends to be criticized without any attempt to account for the political climate. When New Labour took power, a lot of the national infrastructure had been left to rot for the best part of two decades and was badly in need of investment. The electorate was very supportive of such investment, but rabidly opposed to paying for it through taxation or allowing it to be funded by heavy borrowing, so Labour was stuck. PFI was a way of squaring that circle - not an economically efficient way by any means, but just about the only one that was politically viable at the time. e: also, they weren't at all "complacent over redistributive tax" - their tax changes were quite heavily redistributive. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 09:00 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:I'm certainly not saying that New Labour were perfect, but it's absurd to say that they or the modern Labour party were/are equivalent to Tories. On top of that, a couple of your criticisms are inaccurate or without context. It's simply not true that Labour deregulated the financial sector - that happened during Thatcher's Big Bang. Labour actually significantly increased its regulation (between the Big Bang and the creation of the FSA, the sector was largely self-regulated). Their failure in that respect wasn't that they removed regulations, it was that they didn't go far enough when creating new ones and were blind to systemic risk. Well, I strongly disagree that their regulation increases were at all 'significant'; they were evidentially minor, or the crash would obviously have looked very different for us. Sitting and watching a house burn might not be as bad as starting the fire, but I'm not going to delude myself that I should be grateful for that. You could at most say they chucked a couple of watering cans onto the fire. LemonDrizzle posted:I also think that PPP/PFI is maligned for rather unrealistic reasons and tends to be criticized without any attempt to account for the political climate. When New Labour took power, a lot of the national infrastructure had been left to rot for the best part of two decades and was badly in need of investment. The electorate was very supportive of such investment, but rabidly opposed to paying for it through taxation or allowing it to be funded by heavy borrowing, so Labour was stuck. PFI was a way of squaring that circle - not an economically efficient way by any means, but just about the only one that was politically viable at the time. I have little sympathy for a government too scared to lead, especially after the kind of win they saw in 97, instead opting for an ill-thought out and risky scheme that left many public services not only insolvent, but abetted their privatisation. LemonDrizzle posted:e: also, they weren't at all "complacent over redistributive tax" - their tax changes were quite heavily redistributive. If you think that then you must have a much lower bar than me. Look, someone who was on, say, the left of the '70s Labour party is so far to the left of the modern Labour party, that from their perspective there is not significant difference between them and the Conservatives. Almost every good thing they did was far, far too little in my opinion. But, if you're centre-left, if you hold a similar ideology to the modern Labour party, then you would naturally be fairly happy and satisfied with what Blair and Brown did. I don't, many don't, and none of us are ever going to be happy about New Labour, or think that it was a good thing; it was merely better than all realistic alternatives. Saying we ought to think differently on this is like asking a centre-leftist to look on the bright side of a Conservative government.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
Libertarian party call police when criticised http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/police-investigate-man-for-criticising-ukip-on-twitter
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:Libertarian party call police when criticised Not necessarily the party but could just be someone who supports them and is a petulant manbaby. In fact it could be a poo poo-stirrer trying to make it look like UKIP calls the police on criticism, which would be hilarious if wasting police time wasn't a really poo poo thing to do. Also: quote:He claims the police told him he could not tweet about the visit.  From the blog: quote:I asked if I could tweet about the visit. The straight answer was 'no', as this might appear prejudicial in light of the upcoming election and the police must appear to remain neutral. But they couldn't stop me from doing so, as I had Freedom of Speech. Incredulously, I said, "...but you must realise how this looks!" One shrugged, the other looked embarrassed. ACAB, or possibly just idiots.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
I like that the police don't know how to handle social media. It's a much better situation than having legislation that would no doubt put it on par with libel/defamation laws which is the worst thing that could possibly happen. Not saying this isn't a terrible incident of course.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
Hey guys, please tell me if I am posting this in the wrong section or whatever but I just need a little advice in regards to some benefits I'm about to start claiming.. Basically, I've been pretty severely ill for the past year with things getting better since last April but I am still pretty ill due to medications and stuff that I have been on for a while so I'm about to apply to claim ESA PIP. I did try and apply for it last year however they wouldn't give me it due to me being in uni, however as my illness started to progress and get worse over the past 5/6 months after it getting a little better due to a relapse, I've had to drop out of uni and I am now essentially stuck. I applied for JSA and have had my first claim interview and will be seeing my work coach on Thursday but I feel like I am not capable of working at the moment. I worked two jobs last year and was let go due to the sheer amount of tests that I have had to go under with the doctors and I couldn't make the hours, plus I had a few 'incidents' due to my illness flaring up at times including me fainting at work so a random dude had to catch me before I hit my head on a glass cabinet... The only problem is, my illness hasn't been diagnosed yet. They're working under a few theories but they're not sure. They only know it's a brain condition. I've never really been on benefits before so I haven't a clue what I am doing to be honest. I have an absolute crap ton of letters from my doctors in regards to my illness, and I have two sick notes from last year and I was told sick notes are what are important to the DWP so I am guessing GPs can't backdate sick notes and they can only give me one for the coming months right and also is it worth going on ESA & PIP or should I just stay on JSA but explain my situation to the work coach and see if there is anything they can do? I just don't really know what the hell I am doing and how to go about any of this. Plus I'm pretty young so I feel like they're going to think I'm taking the piss and I don't know... I don't feel very confident in dealing with these people. Again, if this is in the wrong thread, please direct me to the correct one. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
tdrules posted:I like that the police don't know how to handle social media. It's a much better situation than having legislation that would no doubt put it on par with libel/defamation laws which is the worst thing that could possibly happen. Not saying this isn't a terrible incident of course. But it already is covered by the law regarding libel etc. In addition to the laws regarding telecommunications.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
Alecto posted:Well, I strongly disagree that their regulation increases were at all 'significant'; they were evidentially minor, or the crash would obviously have looked very different for us. Sitting and watching a house burn might not be as bad as starting the fire, but I'm not going to delude myself that I should be grateful for that. You could at most say they chucked a couple of watering cans onto the fire. Everyone agrees that financial regulations around the world should have been a lot tougher than they were in the runup to the crash. However, "deregulation" means "removing regulations." Labour didn't do that, and in fact added several where none had previously existed. As such you can't really blame them for "huge deregulation of the financial sector" unless you're using some creative new definition of the word. Your take on the situation in '97 is also almost completely ahistorical. A large part of the reason Labour won that thumping majority was precisely because they pledged not to exceed the previous government's spending targets. Look at what happened in '92: the Tories were hugely unpopular, had recently tried to ram through a policy that literally sparked riots and helped to bring down the Prime Minister, and still won the general election because the electorate was afraid that a Labour government would go on a tax-and-spend binge. There's a reason that this advert is held up as a brutally effective masterpiece:  If Labour hadn't made their promises to control spending, it's entirely possible that they'd have managed a humiliating repeat of '92 and lost an election that they should have won comfortably. Similarly, if they broke their promises after taking power, they'd have been a crippled one term government and a party with no electoral future. As for Labour's left from the 1970s, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that they were incapable of differentiating between plainly different things. After all, back in the day they were incapable of differentiating between good politics and self-destructive unthinking tribalistic bullshit that resulted in the near-absolute destruction of trade union power and almost two decades of unbroken Tory rule.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
Onion Vanguard posted:Hey guys, please tell me if I am posting this in the wrong section or whatever but I just need a little advice in regards to some benefits I'm about to start claiming.. Get to your local CAB ASAP. They'll be able to explain everything. Slightly longer version if my phone doesn't eat it again. You can put conditions on your JSA claim saying that due to your illness. You can't work certain jobs. Also the claim process for ESA/PIP is backlogged to hell so you want to stay on JSA while your claim is processed esp since you no longer get the assessment rate while your claim is processed and appealed. Ferrosol fucked around with this message at 12:03 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Looking at renting a property in ipswich. Rent is 475 pcm 1 month up front, 6 week deposit (call it 500), 70 per adult reference fee (2 of us) and 120 tenancy fee. Cool - going back to uni and having to find 1300 quid between 2 students. gently caress letting agents.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:PFI was a way of squaring that circle - not an economically efficient way by any means, but just about the only one that was politically viable at the time. They spent something like £400m just writing the contracts. And once they were written, they couldn't be changed except in pre-specified seven-yearly intervals. Those would (preusmably) have been another expensive festival of lawyerly hair-splitting, and if you got anything wrong you'd be stuck with it for the next seven years. That was never tested, though, since both contracts collapsed before any renegotiations could be completed*. It's also the reason why you hear about hospitals that signed up to 500 meals a day then found out they only needed 400 and have been left unable to change it, etc ad almost infinitum. *There were plenty of other problems with the tube contracts, not limited to the fact that both Metronet and Tube Lines were guaranteed a rate of return, which flies completely in the face of the point of contracting-out in the first place, which is that the contractor is supposed to bear the risk. Then it turned out that 95% of their bank loans were underwritten by the taxpayer too, so when it all went tits up taxpayers had to pay once again.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Your take on the situation in '97 is also almost completely ahistorical. A large part of the reason Labour won that thumping majority was precisely because they pledged not to exceed the previous government's spending targets. Look at what happened in '92: John Major squeaked a small majority, and his government was subsequently plagued by corruption scandals, Black Monday, Euro-quarrels and stupid campaigns about highway cones and back to basics. Labour could have won in 1997, pretty much whatever they said.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
What's the deal with hardship payments and crisis loans? Are they easy to get hold of, are people in need aware of them, and how much do they work? I want to know how useful a relief fund for the sanctioned and the victims of bureaucratic snarlups would be, as direct action to help someone.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
mrpwase posted:What's the deal with hardship payments and crisis loans? Are they easy to get hold of, are people in need aware of them, and how much do they work? Crisis loans no longer exist and hardship payments are(iirc) 60% of JSA, and takes at least an hour on the phone, and you have to really, REALLY stress how poor you are. Bring in rent arrears, utility bills, food and that; its for if your health would suffer from sanctions. I would never advise anyone to lie, but you have to lay it on with a trowel.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
Zephro posted:I think you're underselling the problems of PFI, a lot of which arise from the fact that you have to manage the projects with a contract rather than through a traditional management structure. That requires you to specify everything through the contract. That's impossible, but trying leads to a bunch of absurdities.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:Not necessarily the party but could just be someone who supports them and is a petulant manbaby. In fact it could be a poo poo-stirrer trying to make it look like UKIP calls the police on criticism, which would be hilarious if wasting police time wasn't a really poo poo thing to do. The police have now released a statement confirming that a UKIP councillor made the complaint.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:The police have now released a statement confirming that a UKIP councillor made the complaint. drat, I wish I could wind-up a UKIP councillor enough over Twitter to get them to call the police on me, I need to try harder. Do we know which councillor it was, I'd like to tweet them this: 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
haha do it do it, we got to make that viral, is that your creation? if so good job!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Loonytoad Quack posted:drat, I wish I could wind-up a UKIP councillor enough over Twitter to get them to call the police on me, I need to try harder. Do we know which councillor it was, I'd like to tweet them this: Toad, can I nick that for facebook and so on?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Zephro posted:I think you're underselling the problems of PFI, a lot of which arise from the fact that you have to manage the projects with a contract rather than through a traditional management structure. That requires you to specify everything through the contract. That's impossible, but trying leads to a bunch of absurdities. The canonical example is the two Tube PPPs being required to specify what counted as "litter" (in pursuit of improving the 'ambience' of the stations, one of the three things the private companies were meant to do). The definition they agreed on meant that a discarded paper ticket would be regarded as litter but one that had been ripped into quarters and then thrown away would not. you can't understand the legalism of the PFIs in absence of how New Labour interpreted the reasons for the failure of the previous era of trade union militancy there is a well-established postwar institutional route for the public-private partnership, where an organization employs public funds toward designated ends, but without the complexities of continuous parliamentary oversight or ministerial intervention. It's just the quango, or statutory board. But just as New Labour sought to resolve the accusation of trade unions being undemocratic by enforcing a complex set of internal procedures and restrictions upon trade unions (and messaging that evasions of these rules would be regarded as undemocratic), it sought to resolve the problem of stat boards being sitting ducks for militants by making it bafflingly complex as to who, exactly, industrial action would have to affect in order for strikes to be successful. One could strike against the NCB in alliance with wider sentiment that heating prices were too high or deliveries too unreliable, but it's much harder to strike against Ofgem, the union can only get so much out of the private companies regulated by Ofgem, the public doesn't see "the NCB", it sees their individual energy supplier, and any successful actions to increase energy funding would both bring it into overt conflict with other political groups (e.g., greens) rather than simply calling upon the government to wrangle miracles in the stat board's budget, and form common cause between the employer and labour (because both benefit from increased energy spending) rather than aggravating conflict. that is to say, the legalism of PFIs is an extension of the legalism of labour bargaining, and the legalism of labour bargaining enjoyed support because pro-union New Labourites saw it as a solution to managerial exploitation of ambiguities in promises and anti-union New Labourites saw it as a way to defang militancy. As you've correctly observed, this doesn't really resolve the problems with trying to prevent abuse of ambiguities in contractual specification through more specification. But perhaps expensive legal judo over periodic bargains is still less expensive than expensive strikes over periodic bargains.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
I found it on another forum, didn't make it, don't know who made it, it just made me chuckle. Tweet at UKIP councillors to your heart's content.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:I worked on a military PFI a few years back and 1 of the senior developers and one of the managers (who was also an experienced dev) had to spend pretty much all their time working on the details of the contract instead of doing any actual work. It did get done, just, but I cant help but think if it was just done in public hands there were would have been more people doing actual work and it would have been more efficient. Working on a bid for a government contract right now and Jesus, is this true. It becomes less surprising that Serco, G4S and Crapita hoover up so many contracts when you see the sheer volume and complexity of what you have to go through in the course of a bid: it requires whole department's worth of experienced people just to negotiate through the hoops.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
I've just been looking at the European election polls, and I've just realised that UKIP was actually leading in them  . I assumed that they were close to Labour, but still behind them. Its may only be a few more votes: but UKIP "winning" the Euro elections (despite probably having less power in the European Parliament as all their old pals have flocked towards Le Pen's group that UKIP are refusing to join) will give them a huge credibility boost for next year...
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:John Major squeaked a small majority, and his government was subsequently plagued by corruption scandals, Black Monday, Euro-quarrels and stupid campaigns about highway cones and back to basics. Labour could have won in 1997, pretty much whatever they said. Zephro posted:I think you're underselling the problems of PFI...
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:I've just been looking at the European election polls, and I've just realised that UKIP was actually leading in them I don't have the numbers to hand, but I think it's fairly well established that people will vote for the likes of UKIP in a European election, but when it is perceived that voting 'matters' (ie a General Election) people vote for one of the big three. Something along the lines of UKIP getting around 25% at the last Euro elections then about 3% at the next GE.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
The General election polls have UKIP still in the low teens: but I could see that changing if they had the "we won the election; we're relevant!" card... Its not like UKIP are going to be relevant in the next parliament: they've got a chance to get a few Tory seats I imagine but they won't win a great deal. The biggest fear that the Tories have is that UKIP being at 15% pretty much eliminates any chance they have to get a majority government: which would still be on the cards if UKIP were still a joke party - I know Labour are still leading, but usually the polls move towards the government as the election approaches, so its still not certain yet.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
There is zero chance that UKIP can win a general election. Don't worry, it's designed that way. Maybe if UKIP gets a large share of the popular vote - say 25% - and the corresponding one or two seats in Parliament that would get them; maybe there'll actually be popular (albeit racist) sentiment for an effective democratic method to replace the travesty that is currently Established. Silver lining and all.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Loonytoad Quack posted:drat, I wish I could wind-up a UKIP councillor enough over Twitter to get them to call the police on me, I need to try harder. Do we know which councillor it was, I'd like to tweet them this: Okay, I got to "pay for a shotgun" before I realized it's a joke. ... please tell me it's a joke.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:That certainly isn't my intention, and I'm not claiming that PFI is an optimal solution by any stretch of the imagination. However, given that Labour couldn't tax and couldn't borrow on the capital markets during their first term, they didn't exactly have a lot of alternatives; it was PFI or let the infrastructure continue to rot. I struggle to believe that the PPPs were only ever intended as a temporary measure to acquire bonds, given the way they were set up (as long-term partnerships, but with aggressively narrowed options and existence outside of state discretion). I mean, acquiring funding through a credible commitment to only use it for infrastructure rather than welfare/military/generalissimo's Swiss account etc. is a legit public goal, but it's also one with a well-known solution, i.e., a national development bank. Having the supposedly insolvent/incredible state conduct detailed intervention into the behavior of PPPs via contract would undermine the supposed bond-inducing credibility.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
I know that UKIP aren't going to win the general election unless the entire country goes insane and Farage gets 40% of the vote. I'd just rather that they don't get a decent share of the vote and no seats: because then I'd have to agree with UKIP about how it'd be undemocratic that they weren't in parliament...
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:The General election polls have UKIP still in the low teens: but I could see that changing if they had the "we won the election; we're relevant!" card... I think that disillusioned Lib Dems defecting to Labour while the Tory vote is split a bit by UKIP might result in a very big Labour victory. Then a massive Tory victory in 2020 because Ed Milliband 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
spoiler alert: they're deffo going to get a larger percentage of the vote than percentage of seats
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Your take on the situation in '97 is also almost completely ahistorical. A large part of the reason Labour won that thumping majority was precisely because they pledged not to exceed the previous government's spending targets. Look at what happened in '92: the Tories were hugely unpopular, had recently tried to ram through a policy that literally sparked riots and helped to bring down the Prime Minister, and still won the general election because the electorate was afraid that a Labour government would go on a tax-and-spend binge. There's a reason that this advert is held up as a brutally effective masterpiece: This is more than a little revisionist. Everyone forgets John Smith, but while he was leader Labour had a commanding poll lead (way beyond what Kinnock saw pre-92), the Conservatives got whooped in council elections (worst defeat in 30 years) and Labour were pretty much guaranteed the '97 victory. It wouldn't have been as big as Blair's, the polls may well have narrowed going into the election as the Conservatives scaremongered about 'reckless spending', but they would've won and then been in a position to deliver leftist policies, unlike Blair, who, as you identified, sold the shop for an increased majority. Maybe it would've gone to poo poo, maybe the public would've hated the government's policies and a lurch to the right would've been needed later anyway, but maybe it wouldn't and maybe the country would be a lot better off for it. Given that you're arguing the opinion 'New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same' is indefensible, bringing up the spending pledge doesn't really help your case. The core of New Labour's campaign was that they would do essentially what the Conservatives had been doing, but with less scandal and less infighting over Europe. Whether the other bits like tax credits and the minimum wage level were dabbling round the edges or hugely important is, yet again, a matter of perspective. Given that, 'New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same' is an opinion that someone could legitimately hold, just as 'New Labour and the Conservatives are very different' is also a legitimate opinion. LemonDrizzle posted:As for Labour's left from the 1970s, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that they were incapable of differentiating between plainly different things. After all, back in the day they were incapable of differentiating between good politics and self-destructive unthinking tribalistic bullshit that resulted in the near-absolute destruction of trade union power and almost two decades of unbroken Tory rule. You're right, how dare people with leftist opinions not simply shut up and accede to those who disagree with them and single-handedly, entirely without other factors, allow Thatcher to increase a majority off the back of a decreased vote share. Politicians should just all sit in the centre and do whatever the gently caress flies through the mind of the average Joe this week, none of this leading, persuading, educating nonsense. Just like Thatcher, she certainly didn't secure a big election win off of a radical platform, nor did she do anything radical while in office. Yep, centrism is truly the only way to go. Painfully over the top sarcasm aside, are you really going to deny the relativity of a spectrum and simply say people not in the middle have different opinions because they're stupid? You can't tell people that their perceptions are wrong, only have your own differing ones.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
If we didn't have FPTP UKIP may well win a few seats but thanks to that particular failure of democracy we needn't worry.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
 Dudley Conservative leaflet.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
twoot posted:
Hang on. Why is Labour on a higher % but with a lower bar on the graph? Are they trying to hoodwink people who do not know about numbers?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:13
|
|